Cardinal Cupich is mandating FOR HIS PRIESTS the experiemental genetic stews derived from aborted fetal cell lines. You know, the ones that can kill you. To reduce the chance of getting a cold by about 0.8%. A cold that, though admittedly nasty, has a 99.7% survival rate.
No exceptions for conscience or, you know, Catholicsm.
As Catholics, we may face loss of job, education, friends, access to healthcare and loss of liberty for refusing to participate in the evils these types of people would force on us. As Catholics, we must say to our priests: we expect you to resist as well. We need you to back us up. We need you.
In return, we will back you up. You need us, and never more so than when standing firm for Christ. Together we can better bear the persecution to come.
Jer. 23: 1Woe to the pastors, that destroy and tear the sheep of my pasture, saith the Lord. 2Therefore thus saith the Lord the God of Israel to the pastors that feed my people: You have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold I will visit upon you for the evil of your doings, saith the Lord. 3And I will gather together the remnant of my flock, out of all the lands into which I have cast them out: and I will make them return to their own fields, and they shall increase and be multiplied. 4And I will set up pastors over them, and they shall feed them: they shall fear no more, and they shall not be dismayed: and none shall be wanting of their number, saith the Lord.
I used to wonder if citizens of the Roman Empire right before it fell had knowledge that the end was near, and if so, what they thought about it. Life goes on, day-by-day. One gets out of bed, prays (hopefully), lives out their state in life, engages in commerce and conversation, and goes to bed at night. But hanging over the Romans, whether they knew it or not, was the end of all they knew as normal life. Did it hang over them in a palpable way, like a pall? Did it infect and infuse these actions and affect their quality? Did they think they could change things? Did they pray God not to let it happen? That it couldn’t possibly happen?
As I sit here, typing away about our similar– or likely far, far worse– situation, the meteor is relentlessly and remorselessly hurtling towards us. I get up, pray (hopefully), live out my state in life (poorly), engage in commerce and conversation, and go to bed at night. Every day that goes by, I know we approach a date with destiny– a destiny we are choosing by our actions and inactions. By our sins and good works. I don’t know about you, but the sense of impending danger is palpable to me. It affects me and my actions. It alters how I experience trials and successes. I am a naturally outgoing and extroverted person, and thanks be to God I have faith and hope, and I pray also charity. But it is difficult to focus.
My dear wife is more easily affected and discouraged by the evil and stupidity that rules our countries and the Church. “Surely, people can see what’s going on?!”, she observes. But they generally don’t, and those who do seem to be satisfied with the mere fact that at least they themselves see it.
Nothing happens. We have no leadership. Nobody is organized, nor can a leader be found to do so. It is too late, and too early, as I read in an article recently. Too late to stop the disaster that has befallen and continues to befall us. Too early to address the aftermath.
No less an Authority than Our Lord said, “When the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on the earth?” The question implies, as I’ve written before, that absolutely He will, but that it is a damn near run thing.
Ann Barnhardt cites scripture today, noting that because iniquity hath abounded the charity of men will run cold. It is cold indeed, and getting colder. The so-called shepherds of the Church are trying to kill the Mass. They are cooperating, some enthusiastically, with the cabal that wants us to be injected–at great harm to our physical and spritual lives– with experimental genetic material derived from aborted fetal cell lines. Some support persons losing their jobs, access to education, healthcare, the economy, and social life if they fail to do so. Many bishops last year shut down Masses more quickly and for longer that even the godless, secular governments.
In so doing, they have betrayed their flocks. They have sent the clear message that not only will they not stand up to the forces of evil, neither will they support our efforts to stand. Their actions betray an apparent lack of supernatural faith.
Not to mention the Bergoglio “reign”, yet enough has been said in this forum on that.
But this is not to let ourselves off the hook. We are paying for our own sins, our own laziness and effeminacy, our own slavish concern for our creature comforts. God will not be mocked. He is sovereign.
But He is also faithful, and His Mother’s Immaculate Heart will triumph. Never doubt it. Thus, I’m not writing a post of despair. Stand firm. We must. It will almost certainly get a lot worse.
But just in case this kind of record survives the crash, and someone in the future wonders if the people of the early 21st century knew what was hanging over their heads, I just wanted to say, “Yes. We do.”
So the rumors of what any good Catholic would pray for the Church to avoid have begun. Antonio Socci is reporting that Bergoglio, as early as this Fall, may resign whatever of the Petrine ministry he currently holds. So what does that mean?
It’s a disaster far beyond the disaster that Bergoglio’s reign of terror has been. There cannot be two popes. But Bergoglio would give us three. That is, if he could.
If Benedict did not abdicate effectively, of course, he remains pope. And Bergoglio and all his anti-successors would be just so many antipopes. Human psychology being what it is, the longer it goes on the more established the idea becomes. The more you knit the cable-knit sweater, as Pee-Wee Herman would say, the harder it is to unravel.
Yet if the papal office could be broken down into two or more ministries or functions, thus splitting the whole into fragmented parts, as say Ganswein and Socci, and—allegedly— Bergoglio and Benedict, then soon we’ll have three popes. Why not four? Or forty?
No, I’ll just go with the one pope thing.
If Benedict is pope, he remains pope regardless of Bergoglio being forced out of office resigning the office. If somehow Benedict did resign, then whether Bergoglio resigns or not, I must return to my lawyer’s task of straining gnats to swallow the camel of papal infallibility not being disproven by the current regime in Rome.
I guess what I really want is credit for being the first Catholic blogger to quote Pee-Wee Herman.
Due not only to his standing among faithful prelates, but also because of my great personal respect for His Eminence, I am happy to draw your attention to Cardinal Burke’s statement on the unjust attack on the Mass perpetrated by those running the Vatican. It is, not surprisingly, very good, and a comfort for the sheep now being ravened by the Bergoglian wolves. Lots of good stuff, and the whole thing merits careful reading.
Of course, His Eminence writes from the premise that Bergoglio is the reigning pope (though he does a bit of word play in ambiguity, speaking from my first read, in that he says he is in union with “the Roman Pontiff”, but does not name him. For my part, I have no doubt His Eminence is in communion with the Roman Pontiff). In any event, the money quote from the leading canonist in the hierarchy today is important for the consciences of those who may very well be forced to defend their right to the Mass in the face of threatened excommunication (should Bergoglio actually be pope). Cardinal Burke opines that a true pope’s supreme legislative authority would not allow him to abrogate the timeless Mass:
15. But can the Roman Pontiff juridically abrogate the UA? The fullness of power (plenitudo potestatis) of the Roman Pontiff is the power necessary to defend and promote the doctrine and discipline of the Church. It is not “absolute power” which would include the power to change doctrine or to eradicate a liturgical discipline which has been alive in the Church since the time of Pope Gregory the Great and even earlier. The correct interpretation of Article 1 cannot be the denial that the UA is an ever-vital expression of “the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” Our Lord Who gave the wonderful gift of the UA will not permit it to be eradicated from the life of the Church.
16. It must be remembered that, from a theological point of view, every valid celebration of a sacrament, by the very fact that it is a sacrament, is also, beyond any ecclesiastical legislation, an act of worship and, therefore, also a profession of faith. In that sense, it is not possible to exclude the Roman Missal, according to the UA, as a valid expression of the lex orandi and, therefore, of the lex credendi of the Church. It is a question of an objective reality of divine grace which cannot be changed by a mere act of the will of even the highest ecclesiastical authority.
“The devil will work to persecute the ministers of the Lord in every way, working with baneful cunning to destroy the spirit of their vocation and corrupting many. Those who will thus scandalize the Christian flock will bring upon all priests the hatred of bad Christians and the enemies of the One, Holy, Roman Catholic, and Apostolic Church. This apparent triumph of Satan will cause enormous suffering to the good pastors of the Church…and to the Supreme Pastor and Vicar of Christ on earth who, a prisoner in the Vatican, will shed secret and bitter tears in the presence of God Our Lord, asking for light, sanctity, and perfection for all the clergy of the world, to whom he is King and Father.”
“Unhappy times will come wherein those who should fearlessly defend the rights of the Church will instead, blinded despite the light, give their hand to the Church’s enemies and do their bidding. But when [evil] seems triumphant and when authority abuses its power, committing all manner of injustice and oppressing the weak, their ruin shall be near. They will fall and crash to the ground.
Thanks to the friend who pointed this out to me—this reading from Jeremias 23: 1-6, is the first reading in the Unique Expression today. God is truly Sovereign. For your edification:
 Woe to the pastors, that destroy and tear the sheep of my pasture, saith the Lord.  Therefore thus saith the Lord the God of Israel to the pastors that feed my people: You have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold I will visit upon you for the evil of your doings, saith the Lord.  And I will gather together the remnant of my flock, out of all the lands into which I have cast them out: and I will make them return to their own fields, and they shall increase and be multiplied.  And I will set up pastors over them, and they shall feed them: they shall fear no more, and they shall not be dismayed: and none shall be wanting of their number, saith the Lord.  Behold the days come, saith the Lord, and I will raise up to David a just branch: and a king shall reign, and shall be wise, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
 In those days shall Juda be saved, and Israel shall dwell confidently: and this is the name that they shall call him: the Lord our just one.
This article, posted at The Remnant, is a welcome and rewarding read. The words below are his, and though he writes on the, ahem, uncertain premise of the motu proprio’s author being the true pope, the analysis otherwise is spot on:
“Let’s not mince words: this is a declaration of total war, and must be courageously resisted every step of the way, “anything else to the contrary notwithstanding.” The true “guardians of tradition” will be the clergy, religious, and laity who carry on with the traditional liturgy in the face of the infernal hatred directed against it. If Francis wants war, I hope and pray there will be enough men ready to enlist, and enough men capable of leading them. And by the latter, I mean priests ready to give themselves 100% to the needs of the faithful who rightly adhere to tradition—come what may. There are souls at stake, including the priest’s own soul; for he cannot “unknow” what he has come to know, cannot “unlove” what he has come to love. It is too high a price to pay for obedience to a soul-crushing regime, whatever trappings of authority it claims to wear.
“This new motu proprio is as bad as it seems only if we allow ourselves to think and act as if we are bound by it, as if its provisions are licit. If, however, we recognize that it is inherently anti-Catholic, and that no pope can rightfully trample on the members of the Church and on her venerable rites as Francis is attempting to do, then we will see it more as an external burden, like a plague, a war, a famine, or an evil government to be overthrown or borne with until its demise. Does the pope have the authority to issue such a diktat? No. It is worth even less than the paper on which it is written.
“Those who love the traditional liturgy and recognize in it the focal point of the Church’s inheritance will carry on as best they can. They will not beg for permission to offer the immemorial Mass. They will not do the readings in the vernacular, with “approved editions” (New American Bible, anyone?). They would rather perish as martyrs than die in the ignominy of lapsation.
“The ghettoization that Benedict XVI labored mightily to overcome has not only returned but received a ringing endorsement. I believe at least some bishops will be non-plussed by how cold, harsh, and foolish is Francis’s anti-TLM motu proprio, which has all the charm of a decree by Stalin ordering the purge of Ukrainian dissidents. Of course, there are others who will run with it, but I can’t imagine that bishops who have seen the many good fruits of Summorum Pontificum—not least, the steady and often generous financial contributions that flow in from traditional groups—and who enjoy good relationships with priests and parishes that peacefully celebrate the TLM will want to disturb them for the sake of falling in line with a temporary tyrant. Any bishop who genuinely loves the Catholic Faith, any bishop aware of the burgeoning love of tradition among the young and its power to revitalize the Church after the doldrums (not to say freefall) of recent decades, will quietly set aside this painful document and proceed as if nothing has changed—or rather, proceed in the certain knowledge that, as Rorate Caeli tweeted, “Francis will die and the traditional Mass will live on.”
“On the pragmatic side, most bishops do not have a superabundance of clergy such that they could afford to alienate a sizeable number of their presbyterate. If enough priests in the more conservative dioceses stick to the Latin Masses to which they have an inalienable and unabrogatable right, what are the bishops going to do — throw them all out? Where will they get pastors? Where will they get future vocations? Do bishops need another huge headache on their hands, a civil war, a smouldering discontent that saps time and energy on all sides? Benedict XVI brokered a fragile peace, one under which a certain measure of non-polemical normalcy was possible. Many will want to keep that peace, such as it is, in preference to renewed hostilities.”
Seems like a long time ago, long before the stars were torn down.— Bob Dylan, Brownsville Girl
As the news today is enormously important (in a practical sense), I want to write a few early thoughts on the “Motu Proprio” of Bergoglio that is intended to restrict access to the Mass. I only link to it so I can refer to certain parts of the letter. Believe it or not, I want to be very calm in my words, so I can pray and ponder before writing further.
I wanted to direct your attention to a recent post from Father Z about the doubts many have about the validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s so-called resignation. I wanted to state publicly that it was important that a person with the readership as large as his and a person with the influence he has and a person who is a well-known Catholic priest had pointed out this issue BEFORE the “Motu Proprio” was published. Fr. Z does pull some punches in his analysis, but the very fact that he mentions it at all is an important thing. It is actually very important indeed that his questioning of the putative abdication occurred on his part before the Mass is now officially attacked by Bergoglio. By so doing the issue of the identity of the pope can be continued to be examined without any merit to an allegation of it being done out of petty retribution. Read his post here.
Assuming for the sake of argument that Bergoglio is indeed Pope, some more early reactions:
Forget the accompanying letter. It isn’t the purported legislation. It is a pep talk to his cabal on how to use the document in the most effective way to attack the Mass. If you are Catholic, ignore it.
2. Bergoglio and his henchmen, as we know are not great thinkers nor great drafters of legal documents. However, they really try to do a thorough job here. But there are several words and phrases that a lawyer could interpret a truck through. I was going to cover immemorial custom with force of law, principles of construction, and the continued non-abrogation of the Traditional Mass, but this holy priest, writing at Rorate Caeli, does it so much better:
As a restrictive decree, this present motu proprio of Pope Francis should be interpreted strictly, in accord with the legal maxim Regula Juris 15 (odiosa restringenda, favorabilia amplificanda). Interestingly, there is no vacatio legis on the document either.
Pope Francis indicates in the first paragraph that the bishops constitute the principle of unity of the particular churches and govern them through the proclamation of the Gospel. As the specified end of the document is the “constant search for ecclesial communion”, it would also appear that hermeneutically, this document should be interpreted in a way which genuinely fosters ecclesiastical communion between the faithful, priests, and bishops, and does not promote negative feeling and ill-will amongst any members of the Christian faithful who are attached to the traditional liturgical forms.
It is worthwhile to indicate what this motu proprio does not place restrictions upon. No mention whatsoever is made of the pre-conciliar Breviarium Romanum, Pontificale Romanum and Rituale Romanum. No express abrogation is made of any notable document concerning the traditional Roman Missal, and such abrogation should not therefore be implied. The traditional Missal remains, as it always was, never abrogated. The rights established by Quo Primum, by the theological and liturgical tradition of the Western rites, and immemorial custom remain intact. No mention is made of the traditional rites of the various religious communities (Dominican, Carmelite, Praemonstratensian, etc.) nor those of the ancient sees (Ambrosian, Lyonnais, etc.). There is no indication that the right of a priest to celebrate privately according to the 1962 missal is in any way infringed.
When read in comparison with the extensive granting of rights conceded by Summorum Pontificum and clarified and expanded by Universae Ecclesiae, when there is no express revocation of these rights indicated by Pope Benedict XVI, one must conclude canonically that they still exist.
3. Quo Primum is still in effect. Immemorial custom has the force of law. The Mass is not abrogated, cannot be, and even if theoretically it could it isn’t abrogated by this document. No specific Missal other than the 1962 Missal is even mentioned in any verbiage involving an abrogation. If this man is going to try to use positive legislation to outlaw the Mass, he should not be allowed to violate norms of legislative interpretation.
4. The statement, “The liturgical books promulgated by [the postconciliar popes] in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite”, is typical modernist phraseology. What does it even mean, they are the “unique” expression? It is ambiguous. It doesn’t say “only” or “only licit”. Yeah, I’d say the novus ordo is pretty “unique”. The document cannot be said to abrogate anything issued by a previous pope or which has rights of immemorial custom unless it is mentioned with specificity. Unique. Please.
4. As others have noted, there is a lack of charity throughout this document and the letter accompanying it. One would be excused for opining that there is a seemingly palpable spirit of malice in it instead. Again, if he is pope, and with all due respect to the office and the person putatively holding it, I ask, “What kind of person– what kind of Catholic– what kind of pope– would DARE to write it?
Pray for the Church, keep the faith, get to the Mass. Don’t give up! On this feast of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, who prophesied that in the end the Rosary and Scapular would be our arms, fly to Mary. Pray for the Pope, it is time we heard from him.
Let me begin by apologizing for usinga slogan, though compelling, that originated with the communist criminals in the Spanish Civil War. But when it comes to Christ’s Holy Mass, we must state without fear: ¡No Pasaran! They shall not pass!
I don’t care what heretics say. This is our Mass. More importantly, it’s His Mass.
A time comes to take a stand. If you won’t defend Him when they take the Mass, when will you? Pope Benedict XVI, will you not come forth? Cardinals? Bishops? Priests?
And laymen. Now is the acceptable time. Now is the day of salvation!